ArticleScientific reports2025
Estimating self-performance when making complex decisions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Blaming luck, claiming skill: Self-attribution bias in error assignment.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metacognition, the ability to monitor and reflect on our own mental states, enables us to assess our performance at different levels - from confidence in individual decisions to overall self-performance estimates (SPEs). It plays a particularly important part in computationally complex decisions that require a high level of cognitive resources, as the allocation of such limited resources presumably is based on metacognitive evaluations. However, little is known about metacognition in complex decisions, in particular, how people construct SPEs. Here, we examined how SPEs are modulated by task difficulty and feedback in cognitively complex economic decision-making, with reference to simple perceptual decision-making. We found that, in both types of decision-making, participants' objective performance was only affected by task difficulty but not by the presence of feedback. In complex economic decision-making, participants had lower SPEs in the absence of feedback (compared to the presence of feedback) in easy trials only but not in hard trials, while in simple perceptual decision-making, SPEs were lower in the absence of feedback in both easy and hard trials. Our findings suggest that people estimate their performance in complex economic decision-making through distinct metacognitive mechanisms for easy and hard instances.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.